Birch

No man. I mean WHO thought WHO might say that ? Seriously, there's a state one can reach, IMO/IME just by contemplating this stuff, where one "feels" as if one is the whole shebang. I personally feel this to be kind of offensive and misleading but whatevs.

That was awesome (IMO) - except you said the r-word (which is def just from IME )

I have a perspective I call the "condensed-milk analogy". So yeah, you'd be like a concentrated point of energy (except you're a bit more complicated that just a "point") But as far as I can tell so far, everyone is allowed to have their own way of seeing themselves. Which is probably what I'd suggest looking at more than anything else. You know, the old "know thyself" thing?

Susan. Thanks! I've had a few rambling (as usual) ideas about this stuff. One of them is related to the inhibition of natural growth. Another about "training" growth into intended, rather than un-intended consequences. The whys of our "explain-as-we-grow obsession." Squaring of circles and rainbow chasing. I've equated this in the past to a boy chasing after a butterfly because he finds her so beautiful. So beautiful that when he catches her, he has to stick pins in her and put her on display (tends to collect...) OK, so that sounded a bit morbid. Your Thursday evenings sound interesting!

I kinda sorta "get it" Mr Cow. But could you get rid of the double-negatives for me ?

Yeah, sometimes I get a sense of "what should we let them know this time"? And it does seem that certain "stuff" is making it through the "official" lines. Or at least that we get to talk about it more online. WHY? I sometimes hope it's because there's some kind of understanding that if you don't allow diversity of belief (or reality for that matter ) then you're taking some serious risks to your continued existence. Been a while since I've considered myself this much of a cog. Not pleasant, although I thank you for the reminder TaoMeow I ought to point ought that the "stuff" I'm referring to is all kinds of stuff, and not some overwhelming truth about the universe or anything.

There's a whole documentary by a (British or Aussie?) couple on this one. I think they have/had a website too. A google brought this up. http://www.worldweddingtraditions.com/ but there must be a pile of sites out there.

Oh that was VERY good Otis. I forget, but wasn't the self/no-self teaching supposed to be about ending suffering and that's all? Not about anything else? Like reality for example. Where's that article Cat had about the differences between belief in religion as reality and belief in it as in a good set of precepts? Why do so many religions attempt to describe reality? Except Taoism, perhaps Or is it just the followers that do it? I'd suggest that "reality" is probably a good deal weirder than most people want to know :-) And, I forget. But wasn't the kind of Bhuddism brought to the West stripped of the shamanic stuff so as to be palatable? I liked this very much too (from Sean's links) "epistemically objective, (i.e., whose truth can be discovered and evaluated by any interested party), but are not necessarily ontologically objective."

All great replies. Thank you I reckon I've figured it out. I think this other person wants to do a really good job. And me "looking angry" - however fleetingly - probably suggests to them that I'm not happy about the job "they're" doing. Never mind why I might actually be looking that way or that they're not actually doing anything, just passing through and happen to see me... Anyway, I figure they want to know what the "problem" is/was so they can either fix it or attribute my moment to something else (i.e. "not their problem"). To be honest, I don't want them over-attributing it to me either. As truth be told, there are some things that I'm not that happy about but I don't think they can do anything about either. Like I said, it's a "pick your battles" kind of thing. I think I might look angry when I'm in fact very frustrated and trying to figure out what to do about it. When I see people who look angry as they go about doing things, I just don't engage. I figure if they feel it's worth getting into with me, they will. So here we have a good example of two people probably misunderstanding both the "problem" and the "solution" and annoying each other all while trying to "do the right thing." Isn't that stupid? "So maybe a balanced approach is to give due consideration to both sides of the coin and try to figure which route might be the best for making things go smoother in the long run. I would suggest it is not so much about fault or blame, but how we might work with it to make improvements to the situation to make things go smoother overall." Right. Because I can't miraculously change the expression on my face if I'm frustrated. Well, I can. I can sort of force it into a smile but then how would that come off See it's great to "work" on this stuff, but I don't know how much of it one can actually get a handle on. I also sometimes wonder if all the "working on it' isn't just kind of stupid when you're still left with other people's lenses to reach them through and as far as I can tell, not everyone is "working on it" or even aware that they have a 'lens' And indeed why should they? My answer would be that they shouldn't. Steve F, your point on intimacy was interesting.

Didn't feel any sense of "content" or very strong emotions associated with the exercises, but they did produce the type of shaking that is mentioned in the book/DVD. It occurred to me there was shaking going on on a couple of different levels at the same time and I wondered if this was because the exercises target both muscle and fascia? One "level" was very big bouncy shaking, the other was micro-shaking. I wouldn't compare with "qi-flow" as I've experienced it though but I figure that might just be an even more refined "version"? I ended up falling asleep after it and before I did, I "flew" around places I'd grown up in. I found myself on a street that I often found scary when I was a kid. Just because it was so shady (as in "not sunny") Then I had some fun going to the parks I used to go to. I wonder if that was the "content", none of it was particularly traumatic though.

The entity formally known as Kate suspects Mr Simple J to refer to another entity who often used the r-word and pissed people off in threads by throwing the you-word around quite heavily. But she can't figure out why she thinks that and she finds that pretty strange in and of itself.

" think have we have to be very careful of the definitions we assign to the terms we use. Loy's entire model governing the 'black hole' is not used in the sense that you are defining it, so a couple of problems arise." What was Loy's model? And what are the couple of problems?

Interesting, thanks!

"Just by learning to discern which desires will make you feel bad, and which will not." This one gets my x Billion for today :-) Edit: Tai -po

I was wondering if it would be more helpful to Non to acknowledge that there is indeed a LOT of stupid shit that many people continue to do, all the time? Yeah I know, it's "obviously" a reflection of me, blah de blah I have done a lot of stupid shit...confessional over...next Then point out that just because all these stupid shit-doers do whatever they do, it doesn't mean Non has to have anything to do with it/them? Doesn't even need to waste time and energy thinking of them (or getting large numbers of TTBers to try to figure out solutions for months on end Still, it seems to be a hot topic :-)) I guess at some point, Non, your idea about "women" was correct and reflected reality - if only your experience of the women in your immediate family/neighborhood/TV reality. So "why not" take that idea (that was correct) and generalize it to ALL women (or maybe just certain types, I dunno...)? Seems effective... Effective IF doing that would continue to make sense IF everything in your reality stayed the same your entire life (oh man, imagine being 4 years old forever!) But we know that everything does not stay the same. I haven't worked out yet why one would keep thinking/behaving as if though. And what precipitates change... That would be interesting IMO....But I digress What I'm trying to figure is a way to make one's ideas more fluid and potentially reflect reality (however local or not it is) better. Not relying on outdated situations ti describe the current ones. Yes I get it. But it seems to me so far that direct confrontation "non-dualism" style is one way of doing it, but it also seems to be a tough ride as we seem to have a built-in defense of whatever seemed like the best/right idea at the time. And of course! Because it was correct! Is this then the "ego"?? However it would seem that the latter sometimes operates "timelessly" despite conditions having changed (and I mean for better or for worse). So I guess "systems" that can get around this might do best. Because it's not just a question of "mind". IMO.

"All severe life or death type traumas will be connected to the psoas in some way no matter where in your body it is stored in order to energise flight in the fight or flight response brought up by the trauma. " Can you say/write more about this? Thank you I'm currently very very aware of my glutes being overly tight (oh that sounds so...I dunno) but IMO/IME that whole area can seriously "set-up" your movement to feel unpleasant. And I guess I've sort of figured that feeling unpleasantness leads to thinking it. Reckon some of this is where the FL posture comes from? Basically if you can sit that way you've (re)solved a bunch?

"Essentially whenever you get a strong emotional reaction to other people it is very likely some of your shadow has been triggered, so the emotional reaction you get can be a trigger to take notice and examine your own judgements towards that person as whatever you are rejecting in the other person will also be something you reject in yourself. " Oft-cited suggestion. I keep reading this one. I'm not convinced. What do you mean by "very likely"? And wasn't the Byron Katie thing about this being a hint as to what you need to give to yourself? Oh, I get confused with the duality thing, I preferred the other version of this which was related to approval-seeking. So is one a version of the other? And as "shadow" gets "integrated" as in "no-longer repressed". What happens to "other people"?

I suppose they're doing they're best to explain something, yes. Or, they might not be :-) Could they be singing the song but not actually living it? "Authenticating enlightenment" is an interesting rabbit hole IMO. In other words there's always someone or something else attempting to tell you what you experienced That's just properly insane IMO. And to think it's perpetuated all the way to what is touted by some as the "highest" realization. Hahahaha. Still, I found Dan Ingram's stuff very useful. Why? Why did I find a need to go seek out maps for this stuff? Oh yeah, because I found it scary as hell. Yes I found maps reassuring. What to say to that? What if it really is just a recurrent (if not somewhat rare but getting less-so all the time) human experience? Wouldn't that point to it being a very natural part of any human life? What if it happens all the time but people miss it or imagine they are going nuts? What if part of it is down to personal choice? Anyway, I seem to have a bad habit of going off on tangents, but I find it interesting that one would still like to claim individuality in this process: "my enlightenment" vs "yours" or anyone else's enlightenment. Wouldn't that mean that it really wasn't/isn't "enlightenment"? Don't we hear those "ego-less" people wax lyrical about enlightenment being this definitive ending of "me"? I don't buy it. Yes, one of my experiences was having "me" drop out the bottom of myself. But it came back

I guess this is properly on topic. The qi-gong stuff I've been reading more recently points to building up core before doing anything with limbs. The latest one I read (another one from Yang, Jwing-Ming) explained that if you lead the qi to the limbs before having it sufficient in the core then you'd just end up with physical force (I think the word used was "bravery" which IMO has other implications). I figure the trauma itself could be dependent on a bunch of things, including one's own sense of self throughout the event. I wonder if core-trauma might also have something to do with one's own sense of volition. I dunno, just rambling :-)

Letting go. Giving up.

Wow. It does THAT?? I guess a neat TCM "splaining could be interesting in that respect.